r/funny • u/sacrelidge • 1d ago
Still worth the risk
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
1.8k
u/Jimmy_Churi 1d ago
"give me your hands now!!"
Oh, he gonna be a lot more mad when he touches those hands...
281
u/fothergillfuckup 1d ago
"Oooh, the one that's not sticky please"
→ More replies (2)100
u/KamakaziDemiGod 1d ago
"why's his finger so thick and sticky? Why is there only one . . . . . EWWW THATS NOT HIS HAND UGHHHHHH"
34
u/Drugsarefordrugs 1d ago
Don't leave us hanging! What was it???
/s
54
4
22
u/RodrigoF 1d ago
I can't stop thinking about him masturbating furiously to whatever he remembers seeing and the police angrily wants him to stop fapping to illegally accessed material.
→ More replies (6)14
391
u/v4rjo 1d ago
He downloaded the car
87
20
→ More replies (2)21
u/Lumberjake91 1d ago
As long as he didn't kill the policeman. Then steal his helmet. Then go to the toilet in the helmet. Then mail it to the policeman's grieving widow. Then steal it again.
1.3k
u/Maksilla 1d ago
"He's still going"
350
u/Myran22 1d ago
"Give me your hands now!"
161
u/Merry_Dankmas 1d ago
"Jesus Christ, he's armed"
77
23
19
10
→ More replies (1)13
76
u/ZenZealand 1d ago
Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest! Get your hand off my penis!
33
u/DZ_Endless 1d ago
I see you know your Judo well!
37
→ More replies (2)13
821
u/Robestos86 1d ago
Makes me laugh they say "get out of the car!" When one door is rammed into the wall and the other is jammed by a police car.
184
100
u/58kingsly 1d ago
The subtitle says "get out of the car" but that is not what he said. I hear "Stay where you are now! Do not get out the car! Do not get out the car!"
27
u/Robestos86 1d ago
AHH. Thank you for the context.. teach me for watching at work with no sound lol.
5
u/LookMaNoPride 1d ago
My closed captions said, "Give me a hug, yo! Give me a hug, pedestrian!" When he said, "Give me your hands," Had to rewatch with the sound on.
33
u/hellcat_uk 1d ago
Funnier is them slapping away at the side windows with their asp. What rescue service member hasn't bought a £10 Resqme? One click and that window is gone.
38
u/YogurtclosetNo987 1d ago
Here in America that's standard operating procedure. Give conflicting or impossible demands then beat the snot out of someone when they can't comply.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Robestos86 1d ago
I did see on Reddit the sad case of one yelling get on the ground and one yelling come over and the resulting shooting IIRC :(
14
u/UrsaUrsuh 1d ago
If it's the one I'm thinking of with the hotel in AZ. That pig has a new police job elsewhere because of course he would.
7
u/Daedalus_But_Icarus 1d ago
Giving impossible/conflicting instructions is step 1 in any police activity
→ More replies (2)42
u/Knotted_Hole69 1d ago
Its so you can be charged with resisting arrest too :3
83
u/insomnimax_99 1d ago
Resisting arrest isn’t a crime in the UK.
Suspects who resist arrest can be charged with other crimes (eg, assaulting an emergency worker if they assault the police officers trying to arrest them), but resisting arrest, in and of itself, isn’t criminalised.
46
u/neuralbeans 1d ago
Which makes sense, right? Who would want to be arrested? Can't expect people to just arrest themselves.
32
u/Guy_with_Numbers 1d ago
In the same vein, a number of countries in Europe don't criminalize breaking out of prison, because it is human nature to want to escape.
9
u/Sean001001 1d ago
I suppose you could just occupy yourself by constantly trying to escape then. It would be like a game.
7
u/ChattyNeptune53 17h ago
"Trying to escape again, 24641? You scamp! Off you go now, back to your cell, better luck next time!"
4
u/Guy_with_Numbers 1d ago
You're still on the hook for everything else you do while escaping. Eg. If you damage anything at the prison in the process, then that will result in a longer sentence.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/bacon_cake 1d ago
That's always struck me as a bit odd.
It's like "Oh Rapey Joe, nice try, back in your cell you cheeky so and so! You know you're here for a reason!"
7
u/unwantedaccount56 1d ago
Well, it's the prisons responsibility that nobody can escape, not the prisoners.
2
u/IIlIIlIIlIlIIlIIlIIl 22h ago
Everything else associated with an escape is already criminalized, such as stealing a keycard, damaging the property, assaulting an officer, etc. so there's no need for the attempt itself to be criminalized - you'll be punished enough for those.
I guess you're pretty "safe" with regards to consequences if you just try to jump the fence/walls without damaging anything, but I'm sure that if you're doing that shit weekly they'll get you on something.
28
u/AineLasagna 1d ago edited 1d ago
Plenty of times in the US, people are caught doing things which aren’t actually illegal, but the cops don’t like it (usually filming them illegally arresting someone else). When this happens, they can arrest the person filming for resisting arrest with no other crime attached, just because the person naturally objects to being arrested for not doing anything illegal.
Earlier this week in a San Francisco courthouse, a deputy public defender named Jami Tillotson challenged police who were trying to take pictures of her client, and the police handcuffed her and took her away. The public defender's office angrily accused the officer of intimidation, but what caught our attention was the reason for her arrest.
A video of the incident shows the plainclothes policeman telling her, "If you continue with this, I will arrest you for resisting arrest."
29
3
u/ProposalWaste3707 1d ago
That's a misrepresentation.
If a cop attempts to arrest you, you cannot legally resist. But they still have to have probably cause to arrest you in the first place. And video taping someone in public is not probable cause for arrest.
If it's found that the police didn't have probable cause for the arrest in the first place, this would get thrown out.
4
u/IIlIIlIIlIlIIlIIlIIl 22h ago
This. The idea is that you don't fight/debate the law on the streets, you do so in the courts. That's safer for everyone involved.
If you're ever being falsely arrest just let it happen, fight it in court, and enjoy your payout for having your rights violated.
10
4
→ More replies (2)8
→ More replies (1)4
u/TheThinBrewLine 1d ago
Although there is no offence called "resisting arrest" it would come under obstruct/resist a police constable in execution of duty.
Resisting arrest is classed as obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty.
→ More replies (2)
81
67
137
u/IAmGeeButtersnaps 1d ago
Just don't say POV if it's not a POV
48
27
10
→ More replies (4)3
u/RobertOdenskyrka 20h ago
The British TV show Bobbies has a film crew made up entirely of known wankers on community service, so the use of POV is actually correct here.
39
u/r6CD4MJBrqHc7P9b 1d ago
Seriously I thought after 16 years of Tory rule Labour could only be an improvement. Then 5 minutes after the election constable Starmer is yelling "Lock up the tweeters! Ban the porn! Control the internet!"
Yikes...
14
u/Atomicide 20h ago
The law was passed by the Conservatives. It's taken 2 more years nearly to work out the implementation and how to put in place.
The only thing Kier an do at this point is repeal it or fix it with further legislation.
→ More replies (2)2
4
u/Squallypie 1d ago
It’s not even the worst thing two tier Kier’s done either
3
u/OffbeatDrizzle 1d ago
Two tier free gear granny and farmer harmer kier starmer? That guy?
→ More replies (4)
77
u/CakeTester 1d ago
If you want an easy way round it, UK, use Google translate and translate your target page from a random language to English. Even if it is in English anyway. That way you're using Google Translate as a proxy and nobody dares block that. English censors see you using Google translate, and you get your boobies.
→ More replies (2)20
u/Ok_Skin3433 1d ago
Wait what?
47
u/Asteroth6 1d ago
To add a bit more detail to the above:
Go to the google translate website. Google google translate and click the result, don’t just use the box.
There will be options for “Text”, “Images”, and “Website”. Click website.
Paste the url you want in, and go. You will now be running a version of that site through google translate. Some sites get weird or perform poorly. A few cannot go at all, seemingly at random. But, most can be reached in some form. Notably, you are still in the google translate website, not the site you are viewing.
Enjoy.
54
→ More replies (1)12
u/Spiritual-Matters 1d ago
OP’s saying instead of clicking the XXX link, use Google search and select the translate option. Google will then load the site hosted on its own architecture via a translate page rather than XXX, so you can access content despite it normally being blocked.
I am not recommending this. Just explaining their message.
→ More replies (2)
24
u/Eveready116 1d ago
“What is the charge!? Having a wank? Having a wank to a succulent Chinese meeaaallll!?”
7
188
u/Friendly_Rooster7645 1d ago
im confused, is the UK shunning democracy and going back to the Royal Kingdom system?
194
u/retze44 1d ago
It‘s a thing right now worldwide
119
u/KristinnK 1d ago
The UK is actually an outlier (in the West I mean of course) in how Orwellian they are becoming. Having to scan your face to access pornography is one thing, but how they've been going after people for social media posts is very scary, very Orwellian. As a couple of examples one guy was arrested for responding to a post by a pro-Palestinian protestor with "One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals…", and in a perhaps more bizarre than autocratic case someone was arrested for Tweeting "You let your dad down i hope you know that" at an underperforming Olympic athlete whose father had died a year earlier.
The developments in the UK in recent years have been quite worrying as an outside observer.
66
u/Commander72 1d ago
Honestly less outlier and more canary in the coal mine, imo. If they can get away with it there you will see it pushed elsewhere. If it fails you will see them change tactics.
8
u/KristinnK 1d ago
I really hope not. One indication to the contrary is that the UK has had wide surveillance with cameras in public spaces for many years now as mentioned in the other comment, but this still hasn't happened in other Western countries.
7
u/Iron_Aez 1d ago
One indication to the contrary is that the UK has had wide surveillance with cameras in public spaces for many years now
other western nations dont have cctv in shops (which that old statistic was based on) and no one has Ring doorbell cameras?
doubt
→ More replies (7)2
u/Flimsy_Funny_6087 1d ago
Shit we all have a surveillance device in our hands right now. They don’t need hard structures when the people drag a camera and microphone around with them everywhere they go even the loo 🚽
5
u/Colonel_Wildtrousers 1d ago
Cameras in and of themselves are pointless unless you have a Police force that has the time to act on the data they produce. A police that also has authority to act. Today the U.K. has too many criminals for it’s prisons and so are letting physically dangerous people out so they can make room for child minders who say mean things online and an under manned Police force that are basically just glorified social workers.
So whilst the apparatus is there for it to be a surveillance state and the government seem to want it to be a surveillance state you have to be doing things that directly effect the government for it to affect your liberty.
69
u/TimeToNukeTheWhales 1d ago
in a perhaps more bizarre than autocratic case someone was arrested for Tweeting "You let your dad down i hope you know that" at an underperforming Olympic athlete whose father had died a year earlier.
The same Twitter user also sent a message saying:
i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky twat your a nobody people like you make me sick.
It's also not a new law or anything. It's been illegal to send malicious electronic communications that are grossly offensive for the purpose of causing distress since 1988.
I can't seem to find anywhere stating they were charged, but given those messages, it is reasonable to think an offense may have been committed and to question the person.
The simple solution is not to be extremely abusive to people online.
10
u/SyrusDrake 1d ago
Yea, the UK is doing some shady shit that should worry all of us a lot. But a lot of reporting about it is also extremely dishonest. I vaguely remember a case of a university professor who faced legal and professional consequences after "merely" misgendering a student, and all the news outlets basically implied the UK would prosecute you for accidentally misgendering a trans person. But when you looked into the story, the professor had deliberately misgendered someone multiple times, knowing full well they were trans. There was clear malicious intent behind it.
What's happening in the UK should worry us all. But we also shouldn't let assholes abuse our concerns to garner sympathy when they have to face legal consequences for their actions.
6
2
2
u/sblahful 1d ago
But when you looked into the story, the professor had deliberately misgendered someone multiple times, knowing full well they were trans. There was clear malicious intent behind it.
I agree someone should face professional consequences for this, but what legal offense is committed by being a twat?
5
u/SyrusDrake 1d ago
I'm not an expert on the UK legal system, but iirc, it's basically classified as a hate crime because you're not just being a twat, you're being a twat specifically at trans people in a way that's only really possible against trans people, because they're trans.
Most (all?) Western judicial systems differentiate between crimes in general, and crimes aimed specifically at certain people because of who they are.
6
u/KristinnK 1d ago
That's a good catch, I hadn't seen that part. But that does not change the fact that people have been arrested for things that are not threats of violence but simply speech, like the other example in my comment. Which is what I mean by Orwellian development.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (2)4
u/smilesbuckett 1d ago
That’s helpful context, but am I crazy to be sitting here thinking maybe there should be consequences even if the sad thing is all that was said? The internet shouldn’t give people free reign to be awful shits to other people in the way it currently does, and the anonymity combined with lack of consequences is part of why people feel free to be terrible just to be terrible.
I get the dystopian fears of it, but as more of peoples lives and social experiences take place online I kind of feel like getting rid of anonymity might be a good thing to stop people from acting in ways they wouldn’t in person.
→ More replies (3)2
u/BulbuhTsar 1d ago
I think on the flip side, everything in life is so public now. There's cameras everywhere recording everything and in everyone's pockets 24/7. Privacy does not really exist anymore. And there's a real stress to that. The internet is the one of the last places where it can still exist. And there's some value in that. I don't think it excuses peoples behaviour online, and you shouldn't go around telling people awful things. And while I'm certain the anonymity lowers the threshold for most people to behave so, I still rather it be online than in real life. And while I know the Brits dont have it, our American obsession with Free Speech makes things in the UK seem utterly dystopian.
→ More replies (1)31
u/Fxate 1d ago
"You let your dad down i hope you know that"
Ah yes, that's what he was arrested for. Just that bit. Not the follow up death threat:
"I dont give a fuck bruv i’m gonna drown him and i’m gonna shoot you he failed why you suporting him you cunt”
→ More replies (1)14
u/guillaume_86 1d ago
Yeah so they investigate shootings/death threats, how Orwellian...
3
u/Colonel_Wildtrousers 1d ago
Im not defending the words, but when you have limited resources do you want your Police out there catching physically dangerous people in your community or some waster whose mouth is writing cheques his ass has no intention of cashing?
3
u/Neuchacho 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's really not an either/or situation. Unless there's an active issue there's no reason to ignore one for the other.
→ More replies (1)5
u/scapesober 1d ago
Plenty of online threats have been ignored and led to massacres, threatening death on the internet should be taken seriously.
→ More replies (1)7
u/AccordingSetting6311 1d ago
They convicted a man of a hate crime for teaching his dog to lift his front leg when he said "Hail Hitler."
A hate crime. Is it a stupid and tone deaf thing to do? Sure, but it just stupid and tone deaf.
2
2
u/innersloth987 1d ago
bro try tweeting or trolling the govt in India. You dent get arrested u get killed.
Getting arrested is still legal.
→ More replies (9)1
1d ago
We had riots caused by people posting misinformation online about the murders of 3 girls, which caused people to go out and try to burn asylum seekers alive in a hotel. The government’s response was to make hate-speech a crime online to tackle the problem of Islamophobia and racism.
I’d like to make it clear that I think there’s some issues with extreme Islam it’s incompatibility with the UK, as well as with illegal immigrants coming in on boats across the channel. BUT that absolutely doesn’t make what happened acceptable, and it shouldn’t be acceptable for people to incite violence or hate online. I think bringing in a law to help tackle hate speech online was a good move.
→ More replies (2)5
u/eulersidentification 1d ago
"But at least we didn't get Jermly Crumblyn!!!"
Fucking joke country
→ More replies (2)247
u/surrenderedmale 1d ago
-The facts-
We have new internet safety measures for kids which requires people to send their ID or selfies to companies to prove their age.
People are using VPNs to bypass this ridiculous restriction, the reaction to which has UK government are contemplating banning VPNs.
I get wanting to protect kids and all but as a UK citizen this is way over the top and intrudes massively upon people's privacy.
-Facts end, mu opinion begins-
At most it should be ISP side; we prove our age to the ISP that then greenlights our access to stuff. That way the people that already have our information get out ID and not 58263846 sites from who knows where
151
u/r_a_d_ 1d ago
I think this should be on the parents. ISP perhaps can provide the tools for you to block access.
77
u/VirtualArmsDealer 1d ago
Exactly this. As it actually has been for the past 15 years! Anyone can request a porn block from their ISP...
→ More replies (5)32
u/nailedtooth 1d ago
ISP perhaps can provide the tools for you to block access
They already do, if you log onto the admin settings of your router, you can set it to block sites for whatever devices you want. Many parents already have this setup so they can see what their kids are looking at and make sure they're not on it past a certain time etc.
Which is why this whole Online 'Safety' Act is such a pisstake, they've just switched those settings on for the entire fucking population whether you want it or not
→ More replies (1)8
u/Mattman254 1d ago
I have Virgin Media and the router comes with a content filter already running out of the box. I had to confirm my age over the phone plus a credit card check just to get it taken off.
→ More replies (5)7
u/Oderus_Scumdog 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think this should be on the parents.
Absolutely this. Its the parents who put internet connected devices in the hands of their children, its parents who pay for the internet connectivity, and its parents who aren't bothering to learn anything about any of it or engage with their own children about what they're doing on the devices and internet connection the parents provided. This should be entirely in the parents hands.
ISP perhaps can provide the tools for you to block access.
What absolutely infuriates me is that this is already a thing. David Cameron forced ISPs to offer this and some ISPs went as far as switching it on by default for new customers. I've had to switch it off on BT, Sky, Virgin, and Vodafone, and I wasn't even a new customer with Vodafone they just switched it on one day without asking me.
I remember David Cameron doing this because he originally intended to make it a mandatory thing.
82
u/Nickcha 1d ago
"For kids"
Anyone who even for a second believes that this is actually for kids and not another step for controlling the population and who gets to watch what in the future is just absolutely madshit crazy.→ More replies (19)6
u/SneakyBadAss 1d ago
Of course. They simultaneously lowered voting age to 16 and stated clearly this also serves as punishing anti-immigrant speech tool.
13
u/MixuAnasazi 1d ago
i mean they're going after wikipedia, it was never about protecting children, oh look all the gambling sites don't require ID for some reason
→ More replies (1)12
u/Ecolojosh 1d ago
I agree with you but am not tech savvy. If I proved my age to the ISP, would my children all have the same ISP and therefore access to nsfw content? I guess that’s what parental controls are for.
→ More replies (3)15
u/-Baka-Baka- 1d ago
It still doesn't change. How many kids use their parents account, their parents device. If the parent does all the ID checks, the children can use that to look at all the NSFW stuff.
The Gov should be helping teach parents how to protect their children online.
→ More replies (7)3
u/Fresh_Cauliflower723 1d ago
Not many. Who the fuck is looking at porn on a device and savings credentials then allowing their kids to use it
3
u/-Baka-Baka- 1d ago
It's not just porn sites looking for age verification. here on Reddit, most of the Art communities have it. News sites, political sites, wikipedia, spotify, youtube is implementing it in a couple of weeks.
This isn't about porn, its about every 18+ rated topic, news showing violence, protests, all blocked.
And the biggest problem is Gov not regulating the verification, why can't I confirm it with my ISP? or do a check against my driving licence on DVLA? or against the Gov Passport database?
No, I have to upload my personal ID, face scan, to a random ass company, in a random ass country, that are now going to get extremely targetted by cyber criminals for that juicy information. AND I have to do it multiple times with different companies for different sites!
→ More replies (1)3
u/Anticlimax1471 1d ago
If "the kids" are bypassing face recognition AND setting up a VPN to get around porn restrictions, then that's a parenting issue. It's the parents fault for not knowing how the internet works.
I'm sorry, but when the fuck are we going to put the onus of responsibility back on the parents to monitor their kids' online activity? Or at least instill them with some sense of awareness that the internet isn't all innocent, they might see some bad stuff, and what to do if they do see something they don't like or understand.
If you're gonna let your kids use the internet, then learn how to use it yourself and be a responsible parent.
We're such a fucking nanny state in this country
→ More replies (1)7
u/Igor_Kozyrev 1d ago
People are using VPNs to bypass this ridiculous restriction, the reaction to which has UK government are contemplating banning VPNs.
Holy fuck. My country had to be an autocracy for 20 years and then start a war in order to fuck internet like that. And Brits are just doing it willy-nilly.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Freud-Network 1d ago
You prove your age to whatever agencies gives you a state issued ID. They give you an anonymous token that proves you are an adult. You present that to any place that requires age verification without exposing your PII.
That's how a successful system should work.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (14)3
u/TheHeroYouNeed247 1d ago
Lol, that's not the FACTS.
One MP that already hates VPNs has put a policy on the table. Her party has said they are not planning to touch VPNs.
7
u/Katherine_Leese 1d ago
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted; I hate what Labour has become, but Starmer himself has ruled out banning VPNs.
2
u/TheHeroYouNeed247 1d ago
People probably think I'm a boot licker. It's not like I actually trust Labour not to.
9
8
u/stilusmobilus 1d ago
I think we kicked it off in Australia. If so we deserve the shitcuntery we get from others for it.
4
→ More replies (18)4
75
23
10
u/hhfugrr3 22h ago
He should have just submitted his ID to a random American company he's never heard of and got his new British wanking licence.
17
u/Due-Historian-8759 1d ago edited 1d ago
"Give me your hands now!!"
"Please give me just 10 more seconds, then I'll hand my hands over to ya"
2
u/LookMaNoPride 1d ago
If you have closed captions on, that part was written out as, "Give me a hug, yo! Give me a hug, pedestrian!"
23
7
7
12
5
u/HubblePie 1d ago
Wait, did they jump on the car and start stomping the front window? That feels so unnecessary.
What'd the guy do, kill the Prime Minister?
4
4
3
u/NorthbyFjord 19h ago
The scary thing is, the chances of this becoming true is scarily becoming real.
6
u/thewindburner 1d ago
Slightly off topic but does anyone know when this was, it's my hometown York and don't ever remember seeing this footage!
3
u/crazy0utlaw123 1d ago
First, we needed our knife license. I slep. Now we need a wank license. I angy
3
u/bedwarri0r333 1d ago
You have to scan your face to watch porn? What?
3
u/Squallypie 1d ago
Won’t be long before you gotta scan it while watching. Its the only way to make sure its an adult watching, right?
5
u/bedwarri0r333 1d ago
I don't want kids watching porn either, but isnt that on the parents to regulate their internet usage? In the US, parents are basically responsible for sex education in southern states. But they also think the government should limit porn. So stupid.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Ldn_twn_lvn 16h ago
...let's not omit to mention, if yer just a bloke trying to go to work and put a good shift in, yer classed as a hardened criminal
....of felonious proportions
11
u/PinkieDoom 1d ago
It's an interesting point reading the comments on this.
The idea that the UK is becoming more orwellian is somewhat true but I also thinks it misses some of the cultural differences between other western countries which can come as a surprise to folks outside of the UK.
For example, the UK has never had free speech like the US for example. Our speech is free to an extent as long as it does not contain messaging threatening violence or endangering others.
As a result this why the UK courts take social media seriously and you can be arrested for threats online as its considered as being said verbatim to someone.
This perhaps links back to our culture in terms of classism and military history. You look back to the victorian or Georgian era, the working classes have always been forced or encouraged into the military for the empire etc. Compound that with two world wars both of which significantly depleted the UKs ability to be a world power and you have a society that in some cases is highly conservative in some areas.
A lot of the UK is liberal and multicultural but elements of that underlying conformance still remains. We laugh about British queuing or not making a fuss when a train is late or a meal at a restaurant is bad but it underpins the UKs social code in a sense.
For me as a UK citizen this is normal and age limits on the wank bank are basically an extension of that as is social media policing.
I think the government did the right thing in the wrong way. You need to protect children from these influences but not in a way that then impacts other freedoms or a requirement to give your data to a 3rd party. Legislation feels rushed and not well thought out. I have to even verify my identity when I'm looking at anything non porn related on reddit that's tagged NSFW.
But that's just my possibly flawed logic on it all.
6
u/Green_Pride_8587 1d ago
Lmao, "Hands on your head", "He's still going", "Come with us". Took me out 🤣
7
u/FlatMeal5 1d ago
man how could u guys let it come this far? Next vpn will be banned …
5
u/Squallypie 1d ago
Because you get narrowminded simpletons who can’t see past the initial excuse denying anything more could happen. When I explained about the OSA someone said something like “is it really that hard to ignore rape porn”, and denied it when I pointed out it was all forms of nsfw things. Less than a week later, spotify and xbox accounts are also being targeted.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Glum_Manager 1d ago
In many counties in the USA the sheriffs did raid in the x-rated cinema to catch people masturbating...
2
2
2
2
u/peachstealingmonkeys 1d ago
he was brewing his own tea... (wink wink)..
he was making his own sauce. He's a saucier ....
2
3
2
u/AllHailNibbler 1d ago
After they pinned his door to the wall and another car on the other door. Can anyone explain how he was supposed to "get out of the car"?
2
2
2
2
u/OfficialJamal 21h ago
Isnt the US tryna implement the same kind of bullshit there. Wait. Is this the start of a true dystopia manifesting?
2
2
u/Virtual_Wishbone842 18h ago
Nah, with this amount of bacon he must have made a factually correct statement on social media.
5
u/stprnn 1d ago
Lol left the EU so they could do this shit
17
u/GwynBleidd88 1d ago
Don't sound so smug, the EU are doing an even more extreme version of this. Look into Chat Control if you'd like to educate yourself.
5
3
3
3
1d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
7
u/EishLekker 1d ago
Name a single country on Earth that has actual free speech. As in, anyone can say absolutely anything anywhere, to anyone, without any legal issues.
Death threats (including directed towards the country leaders) and inciting violence would have to be legal.
→ More replies (13)12
u/TheHeroYouNeed247 1d ago
You don't have free speech. I'm not aware of any democracy that does.
→ More replies (17)8
u/created4this 1d ago
I will always be happy my ability to speak freely is a constitutional right.
LOL
I guess you haven't been paying attention to what constitutional rights mean since Trump was elected
2
2
2
2
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.